UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

When first coming into the room, please write your last name, your code, the title of your piece, the author of your piece (VA for programs please), DE (if applicable).

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns when coming into the round. If any questions or concerns come up during the round, I will stay in the room for a few minutes after the round if there is anything you would like to discuss.

Please be respectful to me and your peers. If there are any sensitive subjects in your pieces (i.e., death, abusive relationships, mental illness, etc.), USE A CONTENT WARNING BEFORE STARTING THE TIME.

Also, please note that I am deaf in my left ear, so please speak loudly and clearly.

I strongly encourage you to use time signals. I can give you physical or verbal time signals. I will do the time signals that you want me to. Do not hesitate to ask for what you are comfortable with. You are also welcome to time yourself, however, my timer will be the final time on the ballot. Please remember that if you are consistently looking down at your timer, I will be taking notice of it.

Finally, I expect you to understand the rules of the event that you are competing in. If you have any questions about the set of rules being used at the tournament, do not hesitate to ask.

Good luck to all!

I prefer a slower debate. It allows for a more involved, persuasive and better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. Don’t compromise quality and clarity for speed. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

As a judge for this debate competition, my primary focus lies on clarity and organization in communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments in a clear, logical manner with smooth transitions between points. I prioritize the strength and validity of the content, looking for well-supported arguments through evidence, examples, and logical reasoning. Notably, I am not a fan of spreading – rapid and unclear speech – as it impedes clarity and hinders the overall quality of the debate.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with.

As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds.

Please respect each other and have a great debate.

tl;dr for the tl;dr—be clear and be nice :)

tl;dr—I prefer framework and definition debate, but I'll judge all styles and do my best not to be swayed by personal preferences. Any racist/sexist/transphobic/etc arguments won't fly with me. Speed is fine but clarity is essential, this is not just cadence but clear signposting and stuff like spelling out claim/warrant/impact. Be aggressive if you want but don't be mean. Please don't drop contentions and please please please don't attempt to bring contentions back from the dead. I don't want to see your case because I want to judge solely based on what exists in the debate itself. Overall I'm pretty lazy, so make my job as judge as easy as possible by being clear and clean in the debate. Above all, be nice, this should be fun.

Timing—This is probably one of the few things people care about so I'll put it at the top. I'll keep official time, you can time yourself. If you go over time just finish your sentence or thought quickly. I reserve the right to revoke this privilege and if you keep on speaking for a long time e.g. 30 seconds after your time has run out I'll stop flowing it.

Framework—This is the standard by which the round will be judged. If you concede a Value of preserving nature and a Value Criterion of maximizing the number of birds of paradise in the world, I will only judge arguments based on the number of birds of paradise they create/protect, regardless of any other impact. I realize this opens the door for contradictions to my earlier point about making bigoted arguments, and I will resolve that at my discretion. I'm a big fan of novel frameworks and don't believe any framework to be inherently less useful/valuable unless positing that framework causes harm outside of the debate, namely to competitors, judges, and spectators. Argue for your framework, assume you have won the framework debate, and explain why your contentions mean your side is preferred under that framework.

Definitions—Definitions have 2 main functions: to provide clarity and to strengthen your framework argument/develop covert arguments for your framework. Definitions to provide clarity are very important for resolutions that don't deal with common topic areas. They're also useful in showing me how you think of an issue. However, the other type of definition is the real reason anyone cares about giving definitions at all. Definitions quite literally define the terms under which the debate will take place. In this way they are prior to even framework and in my opinion provide the (hopefully only) link between the real world and the world of the debate. If you have done well in establishing definitions you have literally created the world in which the debate takes place and I can judge the debate based on the rules of that world. I understand not every debate will have such a robust world but the closer I am to only ever using my discretion to choose the definitions I prefer, the better. You may notice that this means my personal opinions/biases/etc come into play more with definitions than any other aspect of the debate. There's unfortunately not much I can do about this. I generally won't prefer definitions from more "prestigious" sources necessarily except in the case of particularly egregious example e.g. The Heritage Foundation. The extent to which I value the "spirit of the resolution" affects how I choose definitions depends on context; I'll judge novice LD at a local tourney far differently than a debate on a national circuit. I will attempt to choose definitions for the round based upon the best arguments given for those definitions. Failing that, I will defer to my personal bias/opinion. Failing that,I will defer to the "value" of the sources of the given definitions (you will note that a.) any argument critiquing the ways in which we evaluate the prestige of institutions from which these definitions originate will bring us back to my first criterion for evaluating definitions, and b.) this means that I will not inherently prefer more obvious/simple definitions, you just have to have a better argument for the stuff that's really out there.)

Bigoted arguments—This is really murky and hard to sort out within the context of debate as play. Any arguments directly stating that a given marginalized group is somehow lesser will cause you to be voted down. Arguments that lead to negative outcomes that disproportionately impact certain marginalized groups e.g. colonialism are a bit more complicated. However, note that I will be biased against these arguments to begin with, and my burden of proof for striking them down will be lower, whether I am consciously aware of that fact. All an opponent needs to do is establish these arguments lead to harm for marginalized groups and I'll be inclined to flow that to the opponent's side. In fact, a debater could get cute and say that a framework under which such arguments are good is in fact an invalid framework. I think that'd be pretty rad tbh. You may notice that this seems to contradict some of my earlier statements about debate being its own world and me judging solely based on framework, and yea it does to an extent; however, even though the debate exists within a separate world the border between that world and our own is porous, with ideas, assumptions, and attitudes being carried both ways. (This is essentially the concept of the magic circle as it exists in game studies, which I'm inclined to disagree with generally but I think its basic ideas have some level of applicability here.)

Speed, Clarity, Case Sharing—I've combined these all into one subtopic since they go together to make the same point. I'm fine with speed of basically any level, but this requires clarity of speech. The faster you speak, the clearer you will need to be and the more helpful signposting and drawing emphasis to your main points is going to be. I also do not want anyone sharing their cases with me. I don't care if competitors share cases with each other but I am purely interested in judging based on the world of the debate that both competitors create. Not only does this give me an opportunity to see arguments that the competitors may have not even said aloud, it removes a burden from the competitor to make themself understood. If sharing your case with me helps resolve an accessibility issue, however, please let me know in person or by messaging me and we can figure something out. I will always rule on the side of inclusion over competition.

Dropping Contentions, Addressing arguments, etc.—I was tempted to put this in with the above subsection because this is all related to clarity but I think there is enough here to warrant a separate topic. Please don't drop contentions. I will not flow a dropped contention. If you drop a contention and attempt to revive it through divine intervention, necromancy, etc Istillwill not flow it. If your competitor drops a contention it is your responsibility to let me know, otherwise I will drop the argument entirely and it poofs out of existence. Note that you can drop contentions and still win the round and I am not inclined to give more inherent value to a dropped contention that flows through the round; however, an uncontested argument can have ripple effects through the debate. The conclusions of dropped arguments can have implications on other points still being argued. A quick explainer of what counts as dropping an argument to me: obviously, not addressing a contention at all in your speech counts as dropping it. Saying that you will get to the rest of your opponent's arguments in your next speech still counts as dropping them. Saying "cross apply my 1st contention to all my opponent's arguments" doesn't strictly count as dropping your opponent's arguments in my book but I do find it to be weaker than saying "cross apply my C1 to opponent's C1, cross apply my C1 to opponent's C2,..., cross apply my C1 to opponent's CN." All opponent has to do is find one part of their argument where cross applying your C1 doesn't work/make sense and suddenly you're in a world of hurt. To this point, please be clear about which arguments you are addressing at all times and address arguments individually whenever possible. Make sure your arguments tie back into framework. Claim, warrant, impact structure is a great way of doing that and I greatly appreciate it.

Meanness/Rudeness—This largely goes with everything said under the bigoted arguments section, but just generally don't be a jerk. Aggression is fine and almost expected and I quite like stuff like explaining to me why exactly you won, but there's a line between playing to win and being a jerk. Remember that your actions within a debate have real world consequences. If your opponent is much newer than you and is on the verge of tears, maybe dial it back a little bit. I know that acting above it all is a power move as a debater, but a) this will not work on me and b) I expect a certain level of respect and decorum toward everyone in the room. I'm not here to power trip, but if I'm at one of these tourneys I guarantee you I'm on no more than 4 hours of sleep and just want to be treated with the basic level of politeness you'd give to anyone else. This extends to everyone else as well. I've had some competitors do this thing where they say something along the lines of "you're much nicer/better/more understanding than other other judge, they were awful." Please don't badmouth judges. It doesn't make you look good and I don't care to be flattered at the expense of someone else. Just remember this is all for fun, people are sacrificing sleep, time, etc to be here, and how well you do won't matter in a few years. I cannot remember how well I did at any given tournament but I do remember the time a debater was really nasty toward one of my newer teammates.

PF—This paradigm is designed around LD although most of the concepts still apply to public forum. Main differences for public forum are that my own understanding of the issue/personal biases toward "common sense" are ever so slightly more impactful and I really would prefer you to sneak in framework telling me how to judge the round. Again, I'm lazy. Tell me how to evaluate arguments and tell me why you won.

Pronouns: He/Him

If I've been subjected to debate please send me your case: CameronHardy123@gmail.com

Willing to judge all speech/interp, congress, and PF. LD is also fine if we're in a pinch. Congress is my preferred event and I am a qualified and experienced parliamentarian.

I am a political science major currently in my fourth year at Penn State. During my time in forensics I mainly competed in Congress and Extemp. That being said I'm passably knowledgeable about most events. I'm a pretty chill judge so as long as your respectful and you communicate your arguments in a clear and effective manner, we'll get along great and we'll have a good round.

GENERAL NOTES:

SPREADING- Generally I won't tell you that youcan'tdo something. But if you want me to understand your argument (which should be your goal) then don't spread. I'll be too busy trying to decipher whatever it is you just said to consider the argument that you presumably laid out.

THINGS YOU CAN'T DO- Look, I said generally above so this isn't contradictory. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, or hate of any kind. Period. These things are antithetical to the spirit of forensics and I will not allow a competitor to make another feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

DISCLOSURE- I do no disclose or provide verbal feedback.

CONGRESS SPECIFIC:

Do not attempt to coerce or strong arm your fellow competitors. Regardless of how badly you want to PO or speak first, if I hear coercion I will rank you towards the bottom of the chamber. Maintain decorum as well as basic respect for others. If you got bad recency or don't have the votes to be PO, make the best of it.

In general I will prefer to hear a rushed speech on an under-debated side over a perfect prepared speech that rehashes the last several speeches we just listened to. 4 people in a row all supporting the same thing for the same reasons isn't a debate, its an echo chamber. Throwing together a decent impromptu speech during a one sided debate is one of the fastest ways to the top of the rankings.

I do not require or expect a PO to keep a digital recency chart. That wasn't even a thing when I competed. But if you do, first of all that's very cool and it makes me feel old, and second I ask that you make it available to myself and everyone else in the chamber for accountability purposes.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged Speech and PF, LD debate for several years, but I am new to Congressional and Policy debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Hello, I am a parent judge; as a judge, I am looking for:

speak clearly, not too fast, so I can understand you.

speak to the point, be respectful and have fun!

Please speak clearly in order for me to hear all of your points, ideas, arguments, creations, and renderings. Watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. There is no need for speed reading any speech. You know your time limitations, and you’ve practiced within them.

If you’re debating, be professional, courteous, and prepared. Your analysis of evidence and application to an argument is more important to me than how much evidence you present during the round. Aggressive is fine, but being rude or dismissive is not…that will lose me every time.

These events are allowing you to hone skills that can take you far in your scholastic and professional pursuits, but without the worry of a grade or a paycheck. Enjoy!!

Please speak loudly and clearly. A moderate pace is fine, but speed through it, and you'll lose me. I appreciate solid sources and statistics, especially in debate. Speech topics can hit an emotional chord, but don't be afraid to use humor.

Hello, my name is Nicholas Ryan, and I am in my second year of college. I competed for four years in high school in Congressional Debate, along with a few tournaments in World Schools, Extemp, and Impromptu.

General:

Be respectful to everyone. This is meant to be an inclusive community, and any attempts to undermine that will be judged accordingly.

Congress:

Please make this an open and welcoming event. Congress sessions tend to be dominated by a few competitors who seek to demonstrate their skills. I do not judge this to be a skill I will preference in rankings.

Speeches should engage with the previous speeches and contribute to the flow of debate. Referencing other competitors by name is encouraged. I value speeches that manage to uphold the central tenets of their side of debate while contributing new perspectives.

Rehash is not appreciated. Attempts to undermine the tournament rules, particularly regarding the length of the session and format of questioning are discouraged.

If the P.O. keeps digital recency/precedence charts, please share them with me. My email is nicholaslrcolleges@gmail.com.

Public Forum:

I am new to PF, so I probably won't be receptive to circuit PF.

I want to be able to understand what you are saying. If you are talking too fast, I won't be able to keep up. The most important thing is to present your ideas in a clear and precise way. Jumping all over the place means I won't be able to keep track of what you are saying.

I can understand the topic and arguments well, but I am not very familiar with the event.

Sitting or standing is fine with me.

I will time your speeches and prep.

Please share a Google Doc with everyone before the round to share cards. I do not want delays in the rounds while people wait for emails to be sent. I do not want to be on the Google Doc.

Lincoln-Douglass:

I am fairly new to LD. My prior experience with this event is limited to picking up parts from being involved with Speech and Debate.

I will time, but I would encourage you to time the speeches, etc. as well.

Sitting or standing is fine with me.

I believe in upholding the principles of fairness, impartiality, and a commitment to the art of effective communication. My paradigm centers on the fundamental values of open-mindedness, respect, and the pursuit of truth. I approach each debate with a dedication to listening attentively, valuing substance, and appreciating diverse debating styles. I prioritize clear articulation of ideas, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. While respecting the rules of engagement, I encourage debaters to express their perspectives passionately and confidently. My goal is to foster an environment where participants feel supported in presenting well-researched, coherent, and persuasive arguments. I am committed to providing constructive feedback. Overall, my paradigm is rooted in creating an equitable, educational, and respectful space for the exchange of ideas.

I appreciate the delivery of the spoken word at a moderate speed. I request that you utilize consideration when engaging with teammates, opponents and judges. Please present your argument in a clear, concise and organized manner. I need you to connect your details to your argument.

I am unble to judge speed reading adequately, therefore more often than not you will lose my vote. Please utilize language to clarify your points and enable your speech to be easily followed.

It is helpful to utilize tag lines, signposts. Roadmaps off - time help to clarify the organization of your presentation for me.

Debates and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I will not be able to cast my vote for it. Debaters must tell me what is importand and why I should cast my vote for their position. Please be clear and concise about what I am considering and emphasize your key points. The impacts of your contentions must be realistic. Your arguments must be clear and plausible. Please present a clear anaylsis of why you should win in the final rebuttal round.

I evaluate your fluency of speech, rate, tone, use of transitions, as well as organization of details. Please view each session as an opportunity to learn and grow. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from you!!!